| Literature DB >> 36078852 |
Abstract
The use of smartphones has profoundly changed the consumption patterns and living conditions of rural residents, but there is little research on how smartphone use affects the food consumption patterns of rural residents. This paper uses survey data from 1047 farmers from five Chinese provinces in 2020 to investigate the impact of smartphone use on the dietary diversity of rural residents, the underlying mechanism, and the corresponding group-level heterogeneity. The study finds that smartphone use has a significantly positive effect on the dietary diversity of rural residents and that the dietary diversity scores of rural residents who use smartphones to access the internet are a significant 4.2% higher than those of rural residents who do not. The results are robust to the use of instrumental variables and propensity score matching to account for potential endogeneity. The income effect and the transaction cost effect are the two mechanisms by which smartphone use improves the dietary diversity of rural residents. Compared with elderly residents and members of low-income households, young and middle-aged people and members of high-income households are more likely to use smartphones to improve their dietary diversity. The following recommendations for further improving the dietary diversity of rural residents are made: continue to increase the internet penetration rate and smartphone coverage rate in rural areas, conduct public welfare lectures on smartphone usage and nutrition and health knowledge, and improve the e-commerce distribution infrastructure in rural areas.Entities:
Keywords: dietary diversity; heterogeneity; rural households; smartphones; transaction cost
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078852 PMCID: PMC9518064 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical Analytical Framework.
Sample descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Meaning/Value | Sample Size | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variable | ||||||
| Household Dietary Diversity Score | Continuous value | 1047 | 6.011 | 1.221 | 1 | 8 |
| Explanatory variable | ||||||
| Smartphone use | Yes = 1 | 1047 | 0.637 | 0.441 | 0 | 1 |
| Individual characteristics | ||||||
| Gender | Male = 1 | 1047 | 0.518 | 0.499 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | Years | 1047 | 54.973 | 9.984 | 19 | 69 |
| Education level | Years | 1047 | 6.550 | 3.509 | 0 | 19 |
| Marital status | Married = 1 | 1047 | 0.937 | 0.241 | 0 | 1 |
| Nutrition and health knowledge score | Continuous value | 1047 | 6.712 | 1.681 | 0 | 9 |
| Respondent is the person who most frequently buys food at home | Yes = 1 | 1047 | 0.651 | 0.477 | 0 | 1 |
| Respondent is the person who most frequently cooks meals at home | Yes = 1 | 1047 | 0.615 | 0.487 | 0 | 1 |
| Family characteristics | ||||||
| Per capita annual income (Add 1 to take the logarithm) | 1047 | 9.092 | 1.380 | 0 | 11.513 | |
| Number of people over age 60 in the family | 1047 | 0.462 | 0.617 | 0 | 3 | |
| Number of children aged 6–18 in the family | 1047 | 0.564 | 0.870 | 0 | 5 | |
| Village characteristics | ||||||
| Per capita annual income (Add 1 to take the logarithm) | 1047 | 9.251 | 0.535 | 8.161 | 10.463 | |
| Distance from village to county seat | Miles | 1047 | 50.479 | 42.167 | 0 | 150 |
Percentage of farmers who do not consume certain types of food in one week (%).
| Number | Category | Full Sample | Jiangsu | Hebei | Hubei | Shaanxi | Guangxi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Milk | 78.01 | 75.00 | 68.88 | 81.64 | 79.12 | 84.56 |
| 2 | Aquatic products | 45.79 | 18.59 | 73.03 | 26.57 | 78.57 | 29.34 |
| 3 | Beans | 22.37 | 9.62 | 15.35 | 25.12 | 15.93 | 39.00 |
| 4 | Fruit | 21.61 | 23.72 | 17.01 | 32.85 | 27.47 | 11.58 |
| 5 | Eggs | 17.50 | 12.18 | 14.94 | 18.84 | 23.63 | 17.76 |
| 6 | Meat | 14.24 | 22.44 | 12.03 | 17.39 | 19.23 | 5.41 |
| 7 | Vegetables | 0.48 | 0.64 | 0.41 | 7.25 | 0.55 | 0.77 |
| 8 | Staple foods | 0.10 | 0.64 | 3.32 | 4.35 | 2.75 | 7.72 |
Baseline model.
| Explanatory Variables | Explained Variable: Household Dietary Diversity Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Explanatory Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| Use smartphone to surf the internet | 0.467 *** | 0.223 ** | 0.473 *** | 0.229 *** |
| Individual characteristics | ||||
| Gender (male) | 0.075 | 0.077 | ||
| Age | −0.002 | −0.002 | ||
| Education level | 0.090 *** | 0.089 *** | ||
| Marital status | 0.107 | 0.091 | ||
| Nutrition and health knowledge score | 0.082 *** | 0.083 *** | ||
| Respondent is the person who most frequently buys food at home | 0.079 | 0.080 | ||
| Respondent is the person who most frequently cooks meals at home | −0.130 | −0.127 | ||
| Family characteristics | ||||
| Per capita annual income (Add 1 to take the logarithm) | 0.079 *** | 0.086 *** | ||
| Number of people over age 60 in the family | −0.081 | −0.071 | ||
| Number of children aged 6–18 in the family | 0.010 | 0.013 | ||
| Village characteristics | ||||
| Per capita annual income (Add 1 to take the logarithm) | 0.093 | 0.125 * | ||
| Distance from village to county seat | −0.003 *** | −0.003 *** | ||
| Regional fixed effects | N | N | Y | Y |
| Sample size | 1051 | 1047 | 1050 | 1046 |
| F statistic | 33.310 | 13.360 | 6.89 | 10.150 |
| R2 | 0.031 | 0.138 | 0.035 | 0.144 |
Note: *** indicates p < 0.01, ** indicates p < 0.05, and * indicates p < 0.10 here.
Instrumental variable regressions.
| Variable | 2SLS | LIML | GMM | Iterative GMM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smartphone use | 1.482 *** | 1.572 *** | 1.511 *** | 1.510 *** |
| Control variables | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Regional fixed effects | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| DWH test | 0.000 | |||
| Cragg–Donald Wald F statistic | 24.573 | |||
| Overidentification test | 0.0786 | |||
| Observations | 1046 | 1046 | 1046 | 1046 |
Note: *** indicates p < 0.01 here.
Results for different propensity score matching techniques.
| Matching Method | Treatment Group | Control Group | ATT | T Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nearest neighbour matching (1:2) | 6.131 | 5.880 | 0.251 ** | 2.23 |
| Nearest neighbour matching (1:4) | 6.131 | 5.898 | 0.233 ** | 2.18 |
| Radius matching | 6.131 | 5.863 | 0.268 ** | 2.52 |
| Kernel matching | 6.131 | 5.888 | 0.243 ** | 2.39 |
| Local linear regression matching | 6.131 | 5.866 | 0.265 ** | 2.07 |
Note: For nearest neighbour matching and radius matching, a radius of 0.01 is chosen. ** indicates p < 0.05.
Mechanism analysis: Step (1).
| First Step | |
|---|---|
| Explanatory Variable |
|
| Smartphone use | 0.248 *** |
| Control variables | Y |
| Regional fixed effects | Y |
| Observations | 1046 |
| F statistic | 9.830 |
| R2 | 0.136 |
Note: To save space, the control variables and constant terms are not reported here. *** indicates p < 0.01.
Mechanism analysis: Step (2).
| Second Step | ||
|---|---|---|
| Explanatory Variables | Income | Online Food Shopping |
| Smartphone use | 0.232 ** | 0.060 *** |
| Control variables | Y | Y |
| Regional fixed effects | Y | Y |
| Observations | 1046 | 1046 |
| F statistic | 4.520 | 6.260 |
| R2 | 0.067 | 0.119 |
Note: To save space, the control variables and constant terms are not reported here. *** indicates p < 0.01, ** indicates p < 0.05.
Mechanism analysis: Step (3).
| Third Step | |
|---|---|
| Explanatory Variable |
|
| Smartphone use | 0.201 ** |
| Income | 0.084 *** |
| Online food shopping | 0.388 *** |
| Control variables | Y |
| Regional fixed effects | Y |
| Observations | 1046 |
| F statistics | 10.610 |
| R2 | 0.154 |
Note: To save space, the control variables and constant terms are not reported here. *** indicates p < 0.01, ** indicates p < 0.05.
Heterogeneity analysis.
| Explained Variable | Age | Gender | Income | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| >45 | ≤45 | Male | Female | >14,423.84 | ≤14,423.84 | |
|
| 0.230 ** | 0.158 | 0.336 *** | 0.152 | 0.393 *** | 0.091 |
Note: To save space, the control variables and constant terms are not reported here. *** indicates p < 0.01, ** indicates p < 0.05.